On 15 October 2016 at 18:47, Steve M. Robbins <st...@sumost.ca> wrote:
> ... at least not for boost.
> I downloaded the latest release manually by following the links from boost.org
> to https://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/files/boost/1.62.0/
Yes, this is known to me, but I did not report. The redirector /
sourceforge make it hard to distinct identically named files in
different subfolders unfortunately.
I did too manually repackaged wrong tarballs by hand.
There is also possibly an upstream bug, because they name pre-release
snapshots identically to final released version number.
> Then I remembered that Dimitri had written a watch file to use the Files-
> Excluded facility. So I ran uscan. This leaves me the original download as
> well as the re-packed tarball. Comparing the original download to my manual
> download indicated many differences.
> Running uscan with --verbose led me to the reflector page https://
> qa.debian.org/watch/sf.php/boost/ used by uscan. The boost_1_62_0.tar.bz2
> link on that page leads to https://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/files/boost/
> Notice the crucial difference: the reflector is using "boost/snapshots/master"
> whereas the correct URL uses "boost/1.62.0". The snapshots are pulled from
> the branch tip and are NOT actual releases. So the reflector is listing bad
> Who can I contact to get https://qa.debian.org/watch/sf.php/boost/ fixed?
> Note: I didn't look, so I have no idea if this is a widespread problem with
> the watch reflector. I'd suggest that people do a spot-check on their own
> packages to see.